Myers v. Utah Transit Auth., 341 P.3d 935

Myerses were injured when a UTA bus failed to stop for a red light and collided with their vehicle.
They filed a Notice of Claim with UTA on December 1, 2009 under the Governmental Immunity Act.
Utah law requires a claim to be filed within 1 year after it arises and a suit within 1 year after denial or deemed denial.
UTA initial settlement communications included a February 2010 email stating that the Myerses had until December 3, 2010 to settle or file suit, and an August 2010 exchange extending the deadline to December 31, 2010.
In November 2010 negotiations failed; in December 2010 UTA rescinded the extension; the district court later held deadlines were earlier than correct but did not affect the ability to comply with the Act. Myerses filed suit in October 2011; UTA moved to dismiss as untimely; the district court denied estoppel, and ultimately dismissed after reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to reconsider during appeal	Myerses argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration while an interlocutory appeal was pending.	UTA contended the district court could reconsider the order as necessary before final disposition.	District court had jurisdiction to grant reconsideration.
Contract modification preserved for appeal	Myerses alleged UTA contractually modified deadlines requiring a new notice of claim.	UTA did not modify the Act by contract; no preservation of the contract-based claim.	The contract modification argument was unpreserved.
Equitable estoppel against governmental immunity	UTA’s repeated misstatements and extension attempts estopped UTA from asserting immunity.	There were no clear, inconsistent representations about extending the claim deadline relevant to filing a new notice of claim.	ESTOPPEL not proven; UTA not barred from asserting immunity.
Proper deadline basis for filing suit	If initial notice was insufficient, time to sue should run from a later notice or extension.	Time ran from the denial/deemed denial under the Act, not from later notices.	Time ran from the denial of the initial valid notice; October 2011 suit was untimely.

State v. Norris, 2007 UT 6, 152 P.3d 293 (Utah 2007) (jurisdiction and review issues on appeal)
Patterson v. Patterson, 2011 UT 68, 266 P.3d 828 (Utah 2011) (preservation requirements for issues on appeal)
Irizarry, 945 P.2d 676 (Utah 1997) (mixed questions of fact and law for estoppel in government cases)
Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc. v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 2011 UT 35, 266 P.3d 671 (Utah 2011) (equitable estoppel requires clear representations by government)
McLeod v. Retirement Bd., 2011 UT App 190, 257 P.3d 1090 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (standards for estoppel against government bodies)
Anderson v. Public Serv. Com’n, 839 P.2d 822 (Utah 1992) (governmental estoppel and written representations standard)
Wheeler v. McPherson, 2002 UT 16, 40 P.3d 632 (Utah 2002) (strict compliance with the Governmental Immunity Act)